[HawaiianGecko]

 

 

	"The courts are not the highest law in our system of government; the United States Constitution is. " That sounds cool from a jingoistic point of view, but you really are essentially word-smithing at this point. The courts are not law, never have been and never will be.  The U.S. Constitution is worthless without someone to interpret it (courts), and higher, final arbiters... appellate courts and USSC. I have a question for you. Are you complaining because the courts have given special status to any group or given special status to gays. Or are you complaining that Roberts helped an attorney prepare to be the best advocate for his case in front of the Supreme Court? "Secondly, the Supreme Court had (obviously) not ruled yet on this issue when Roberts provided his help. So he was not defending established judicial precedent, he was helping the plaintiffs to create a new one." Of course Roberts wasn't defending established judicial precedent. He wasn't defending anything. He was simply helping an attorney put forth his best argument in front of the USSC. That is commendable beyond belief. That's like accusing Staples of being pro-gay because they sold legal pads to Roberts. Are you suggesting that in the argument of any case at this level, that it is NOT wise for both parties to be totally 100% prepared to voice their argument to these nine wise sages?  Don't you want the court to decide base upon the best information available on both sides?  That is what Roberts was doing, simply preparing them for the questions that the court would be asking them.

!

 

"The courts are not the highest law in our system of government; the United States Constitution is. "

That sounds cool from a jingoistic point of view, but you really are essentially word-smithing at this point. The courts are not law, never have been and never will be.  The U.S. Constitution is worthless without someone to interpret it (courts), and higher, final arbiters... appellate courts and USSC.

I have a question for you. Are you complaining because the courts have given special status to any group or given special status to gays. Or are you complaining that Roberts helped an attorney prepare to be the best advocate for his case in front of the Supreme Court?

"Secondly, the Supreme Court had (obviously) not ruled yet on this issue when Roberts provided his help. So he was not defending established judicial precedent, he was helping the plaintiffs to create a new one."

Of course Roberts wasn't defending established judicial precedent. He wasn't defending anything. He was simply helping an attorney put forth his best argument in front of the USSC. That is commendable beyond belief. That's like accusing Staples of being pro-gay because they sold legal pads to Roberts.

Are you suggesting that in the argument of any case at this level, that it is NOT wise for both parties to be totally 100% prepared to voice their argument to these nine wise sages?  Don't you want the court to decide base upon the best information available on both sides?  That is what Roberts was doing, simply preparing them for the questions that the court would be asking them.

[Sloth]

That sounds cool from a jingoistic point of view,

Do you even know what jingoism is? Hint: it's nothing to do with what we're discussing.

but you really are essentially word-smithing at this point. The courts are not law, never have been and never will be. The U.S. Constitution is worthless without someone to interpret it (courts), and higher, final arbiters... appellate courts and USSC.

That tells me everything I need to know about you. Living document crap, etc. What's the point of having a friggin' Constitution if the real final arbiter is the whim of some judge? By the way, I'd like you to cite the portion of the U.S. Constitution that charges SCOTUS with its interpretation. I realize you think the Constitution is little more than toilet paper, but just humor me.

I have a question for you. Are you complaining because the courts have given special status to any group or given special status to gays.

No. My biggest complaint is that some so-called conservatives are so beholden to Bush and/or the GOP that they'll defend this horrible SCOTUS ruling just because a GOP nominee was tangentially involved.

Don't you want the court to decide base upon the best information available on both sides? That is what Roberts was doing, simply preparing them for the questions that the court would be asking them.

I have heard conflicting information on Roberts' involvement. But in any case, I want courts to decide on the basis of the BEST information, yes. 'BEST' means most accurate and most relevant, not what's most effective for a given side. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" may be an effective courtroom strategy, but that doesn't make it legitimate or ethical.